p.5 #1 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Chez you are always right, you've thought of every angle, surely there could be absolutely no difference in thinking. The funny part is that you didn't p*ss in my cornflakes because I was genuinely saying what I found funny.
I mean it's folly to say that for my shooting style I rarely have the camera hanging off me, it's in my backpack. And of course it's not valid that I often carry A LOT of primes (because that's just wrong.) And it's not valid that the weight in the pack truly does matter more than the weight hanging off my shoulder, since I'm not doing that. I mean maybe I have a different way of doing things, but it's wrong, therefore your palace of rightness is still intact.
So feel good about being right, absolutely, since no one could possibly say otherwise.
We're all good. I'm glad we cleared that up.
chez wrote:
Sorry I p*ssed into your cornflakes…but what I posted is very true. Trying to justify the weight of a zoom by tallying up the weights of a set of primes is just totally wrong thinking and just a measure of justifying the weight of a zoom. I get it…you like this lens, but don’t go telling me that the weight of the zoom is less than the equivalent primes…because that math is flawed in many ways.
p.5 #2 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
Chez you are always right, you've thought of every angle, surely there could be absolutely no difference in thinking. The funny part is that you didn't p*ss in my cornflakes because I was genuinely saying what I found funny.
I mean it's folly to say that for my shooting style I rarely have the camera hanging off me, it's in my backpack. And of course it's not valid that I often carry A LOT of primes (because that's just wrong.) And it's not valid that the weight in the pack truly does matter more than the weight hanging off my shoulder, since I'm not doing that. I mean maybe I have a different way of doing things, but it's wrong, therefore your palace of rightness is still intact.
So feel good about being right, absolutely, since no one could possibly say otherwise.
We're all good. I'm glad we cleared that up.
...Show more →
So you are saying your view of how you carry your gear is valid here to discuss...but my view is not? Yes, I do carry my camera in my hands as I travel so I am relaying my views on how I go out and shoot. You have a different approach than mine, and I can understand that as I do the same when out shooting landscapes...but why do you think your point of view is the only one that can be expressed. I know many people walk the streets or shoot events with their camera in hand...not packed away in their backpack. The weight of the zoom would be fully absorbed onto the wrist if one is carrying their camera in hand. Surely you can see people might have different approaches to their photography...than you.
p.5 #3 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
So this is your way of expressing your opinion, and acknowledging that not everyone may agree 100%? This was part of your reply to Philip. You basically said he's a fool. Or at least a person who is thinking like a fool.
Zooms have one advantage…they can be used at various focal lengths without changes lenses…that’s it. Comparing the weight of a zoom with a set of primes is just a fools game.
Now if you said that you believed that weight in your hands or hanging from the camera strap is more important to you (or even most people). But you left no wiggle room, you are presenting your opinion as fact. Now if you expressed your opinion as an opinion.....I personally wouldn't fault you for having an opinion that is different than mine or anyone else's. But you aren't expressing it as an opinion. I might say, that I could see why you have your opinion, based on your shooting style. Then I might express why my opinion might be different.
chez wrote:
So you are saying your view of how you carry your gear is valid here to discuss...but my view is not? Yes, I do carry my camera in my hands as I travel so I am relaying my views on how I go out and shoot. You have a different approach than mine, and I can understand that as I do the same when out shooting landscapes...but why do you think your point of view is the only one that can be expressed. I know many people walk the streets or shoot events with their camera in hand...not packed away in their backpack. The weight of the zoom would be fully absorbed onto the wrist if one is carrying their camera in hand. Surely you can see people might have different approaches to their photography...than you. ...Show more →
p.5 #4 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
So that snippet of reply to Philip lead to my reply, I was a little snarky since you came on so strong as your opinion being fact.
Then you replied to me by saying this
Trying to justify the weight of a zoom by tallying up the weights of a set of primes is just totally wrong thinking and just a measure of justifying the weight of a zoom.
So you are outright saying that anyone who thinks differently based on their style and preferences are totally wrong.
I agree with you that many people would find the weight of this lens (and other zoom lenses...heck even some primes) off putting. But if you could present things in a way that allows others to think differently about things based on their style and preferences, that would be great.
I understand your perspective and why total weight is less important than the camera/lens weight. Sometimes that matters to me too. But sometimes it doesn't, and I truly am thinking of the weight of the pack. And I don't particularly like being told that my preferences are outright wrong. Even if my preferences are in the extreme minority, they are valid preferences.
I find it funny how one equates the weight of three lenses to one zoom. What is not mentioned is the weight of the zoom is fully hanging off the camera where as the weight of the two primes that are not attached to the camera are n a pack … much easier to carry than hanging off the camera.
Zooms have one advantage…they can be used at various focal lengths without changes lenses…that’s it. Comparing the weight of a zoom with a set of primes is just a fools game.
I find it funny how one equates the weight of three lenses to one zoom. What is not mentioned is the weight of the zoom is fully hanging off the camera where as the weight of the two primes that are not attached to the camera are n a pack … much easier to carry than hanging off the camera.
Zooms have one advantage…they can be used at various focal lengths without changes lenses…that’s it. Comparing the weight of a zoom with a set of primes is just a fools game.
p.5 #5 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
So validity of anyone using this lens, for any reason aside, here are some f/1.8 or f/2 shots at various FLs. Standard disclaimer, this lens is a bit large and heavy. So whether this lens makes any sense is more of a personal decision. Doesn't mean no one can talk about it, but please be respectful that there is no one absolute right answer to whether this lens makes sense. So feel free to say why you wouldn't use it, why you would. But don't try to enforce your preference on everyone.
p.5 #6 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Totally agree . I’ve carried /used cameras of all sizes and weights over 50 years and none of that means shit but preferences and has nothing to do with anyone else. This should always be about image quality PERIOD. Like it or not it looks very good from what a great job Tim and others have posted. I’m personally not looking to get one just because I’m all set for now but I enjoy the reviews
p.5 #8 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
All the images you have posted certainly make a compelling case for what this lens is capable of producing.
Right now, I have a cabinet full of great lenses. Selecting lenses for a shoot or trip, for me, has become an almost ridiculous exercise in analysis and second guessing, so I have taken a solemn oath, to myself, to stop buying more glass.
If I were starting from scratch, I would 100% acquire this lens, as I am partial to fast lenses, however.
p.5 #9 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
I am in a similar boat, so can fully understand!
InFocus2014 wrote:
All the images you have posted certainly make a compelling case for what this lens is capable of producing.
Right now, I have a cabinet full of great lenses. Selecting lenses for a shoot or trip, for me, has become an almost ridiculous exercise in analysis and second guessing, so I have taken a solemn oath, to myself, to stop buying more glass.
If I were starting from scratch, I would 100% acquire this lens, as I am partial to fast lenses, however.
p.5 #10 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
That's exactly my "issue" with this lens. Lately, I've been getting irritated with lenses just sitting on my shelf since forever and started the culling process . Once I'm done, I'm pretty sure I'll reacquire the Sigma, as there really is nothing like it in the standard-ish zoom range...
InFocus2014 wrote:
All the images you have posted certainly make a compelling case for what this lens is capable of producing.
Right now, I have a cabinet full of great lenses. Selecting lenses for a shoot or trip, for me, has become an almost ridiculous exercise in analysis and second guessing, so I have taken a solemn oath, to myself, to stop buying more glass.
If I were starting from scratch, I would 100% acquire this lens, as I am partial to fast lenses, however.
p.5 #15 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Yea not your best shot I think we can agree but the focal and aperture lend itself to 3d ish. People ask about this all the time and I believe it's more about a combination of a couple things. Aperture/focal/distance to subject/distance beyond subject and of course lighting and not to mention color and sharpness
p.5 #18 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
I've been waiting for a fast prime level right in this range with the Bigma prime look (and the 14-24). I'm used to the Otus and the 40 1.4, so I was surprised at the lighter weight. The bokeh looks a lot cleaner too (more like the warm/cold neutral aberration shifts).
The S35 shots look great too, I really like my 65i but this zoom might replace that too.
. Once I'm done, I'm pretty sure I'll reacquire the Sigma, as there really is nothing like it in the standard-ish zoom range...
